The Case for INTELLIGENT Evolution pt 2

Perry Marshall explains in clear terms that DNA is clearly designed. It is necessary to suspend your beliefs and approach this subject with open minded skeptism and allow the "information" to come into your mind. You will see that there really is no other explanation. All life was designed.

The question then changes to who designed it? It's a legitimate question that we simply can't answer. But what we can say is that life does have a purpose since we were designed. For more information please visit Perry Marshall's website at

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Consciousness
• Information
• Theory
• Spiritual
• Meditation
• Origion
• of
• Life
• DNA
• The
• Genetic
• Code
• Perry
• Marshall

[Subher0]

If you really want to see a computerised model of evolution check out cdk007's "Why Intelligent Design is Wrong, part I". Remember, the goal is set by the environment and humans clicking ads IS NOT natural selection...

[tristenmc]

Yes, I saw that, and I saw some problems with his model. But everything is how you percieve things. So I can totally understand your point of view. I hope your model of life gives you all the happiness in the world. Take care.

[Subher0]

He says there is a goal... he clearly set no goal for his words to go to.

[tristenmc]

If you watch, the goal was to write a better ad. And he showed how you could put it on the internet and track people's clicks on the ad. So of course the ones that would get the clicks would survive, and those that did not would fail. That was the goal. . .it's difficult to grasp the concept unless you watch the entire series.

[Subher0]

I grasp the concept. The clicked ads survive and I guess don't evolve because they are fit to survive since they are comprehensable. The ads that get few clicks will evolve letters to see if it attracts more people then... Well, this is very subject to interests of people, but it still isn't correct because indeed as he says evolution doesn't follow the rules of english language but of nature... letters aren't natural they are manmade...

[tristenmc]

True, but are the rules of nature more or less tolerate than those of the english language? Especially since a DNA strand is considerably longer than that of a standard ad?

[09205479428]

How does " natural selection" factor work in the program ? I think as a mutation would occur, natural selection factor has to be made by "intellectual " affirmation so that such mutation would be adapted for the next generation, otherwise if it had not received positive affirmation from " consumers", the mutation would fade. Affirmation from consumers can be done by the participation of end users for the program. Hmmm, am i missing how the program was made ?

[Subher0]

... and again what you try to make of it is that its simple organisms> *WHAM* humans... no. Take into account that this earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and that for at least 3.5 billion years life has been around. This gives it ample time to evolve, and it has.

Faith in my eyes, is a silly concept, and I don't take things on faith.

[Subher0]

2. You say the universe popped into the existence "out of nowhere". Clearly this shows, again, how little you know about what we know of the beginning of the universe. I'm sorry but no scientist will EVER say the universe "popped into existance out of nothing", that's what you make of it.

3. Mutation is a part in the evolutionary process, so it's not "mutation and evolution" it's just evolution. Pond scum seems to demean it but yes, simple organisms turned into more complex organisms. [cont.]

[Subher0]

There are several points: 1. You do not understand what atheism is. Atheism is a matter of not believing, it has no doctrine, and it cannot by defenition be a religion. I don't even know how to respond to your political arm argument, other then that it's absurd. Scientists being "high priests"? Without these scientists we'd still be in the dark ages, so a little respect is in order... [cont.]

[Subher0]

First off atheism is not a religion.

Second if THAT was "thesame crap" then go read the MILLION responses people already made to your question... now who's moving hurdles? Stop parroting your creationist protagonists.

And again you ask the wrong question. Everything happened clearly as it has, else we were not here, and it doesn't need to have a reason. If you want to boil this down to that all this had to have a beginning [and preferrably intelligent] we can just continue from there.

[Subher0]

Learn what natural selection is and mutation before you ask questions showing how unknowledgeable you are on the subjects.

Then return with fresh questions.

[tip: read from wikipedia or talkorigins 'dot' org and not only religious sources]

[Subher0]

Nobody did. Why do you assume there is a "who"?

[Subher0]

No this is how it is, it is not perceived it is just a wrong comparison between evolution and something that only looks similar but isn't thesame at all. If you perceive this model as a reflection of the real evolution your perception is just distorted. That's not my opinion it is just a plain fact... Look evolution directly doesn't give me happiness, that is determined by other things, but the constant attacks toward scientific facts sure make me unhappy...

[Subher0]

BTW He's only using random mutation but random mutation alone is not good enough you need natural selection, mutation and reproduction...